McCain has lost definition. He's stumbling along to the finish line, hoping to achieve his lifelong ambition, to seize the crown at last. But why? To show he can get along with Democrats? I worry about what awful innovations the new President will concoct in league with the Democratic Congress, but at this point, I'm more worried about McCain than Obama....

Is there some sort of idea that if you think McCain is too liberal, you still have to vote for him, because if he's too liberal, then Obama is really too liberal? I don't buy that. Better a principled, coherent liberal whose liberal choices will, if they don't go well, be blamed on liberals than an erratic, incoherent liberal whose liberal choices will be blamed on the party that ought to get its conservative act together.

Usually, I prefer divided government, but that doesn't mean I need to support McCain. I've seen McCain put way too much effort into pleasing Democrats and flouting his own party, and I can picture Obama standing up to the Democratic Congress and being his own man. What, really, will he owe them? McCain, by contrast, will need them. And we've seen that he wants to be loved by them.

Sometimes, I think that letting the Democrats control everything for 2 years would work out just fine. Let one party take responsibility for everything. When they can't whine and finger-point, what will they actually step up and do? It will be interesting to know. And it will do the Republicans good to retool and define themselves, with an eye toward the 2010 election. I'd like to see this clarification after so many years of obfuscation.

160 comments:

This is precisely my argument for sitting out the 2008 election. McCain would have been a long-term disaster for the Republican party and that's bad because Republicans, such as they are, are the only things that stand between the USA and a full partnership with Venezuelan Socialism.

I totally agree with Tancredo. This line of reasoning has been my comforting mantra because I know McCain would have driven me crazy with all his compromising. The Federal Gov't is way too big, intrusive and costly because of both parties. It really seems we are at a point of obvious unsustainablity and we need to be able to push back...HARD. It helps to have the Dems driving this train wreck since their base is in favor of Big Government. Now the conservatives can make their case more freely and passionately.

At the time that you presented this argument for voting against McCain, I rejected it, because I thought that Obama was a more dangerous choice, as he was obviously a far-left ideologue.

As long as Obama's unable to pass health care "reform", and cap-and-tax, and card check, and immigration "reform", then you were right, and I was wrong.

But consider the narrow margin by which you were right: Had Ted Kennedy not died when he did, had the Dems not nominated the worst senate candidate in history to replace him...then health care would have passed, and all of these other nightmare initiatives would have followed like dominoes. And I don't think that McCain would have been the transformational socialist that Obama wants to be.

It may, in fact, turn out in the end that the country is better off that Obama beat McCain for the reason given by Tacredo (and many others). Rev (the commenter) made this point repeatedly. However, as a strategy, it was a very high stakes game of chicken in this election cycle. Consider that Obama plus a Democrat Congress (which we knew it would be at the time of the Presidental election) almost suceeded (and still may) in enacting a health care structure which would have had devasting permanent effect on the health of all Americans.

Perhaps the posting was neutral, but I was never surprised that the Professor eventually voted for Obama. Indeed, I always laughed at the notion that the Professor might vote for the more conservative choice. I don't expect anything different in 2010 or 2012.

My only concern with the idea that Obama would do for conservatives what Carter did, was there wasn't a Ronald Reagan ready and able to step in. I still feel I was justified with that concern but it looks like November 2010 could be as helpful.

In any case Pastafarian is correct, we came real close to some bad things and I'm still not convinced they still won't happen.

I’d say about half-right….the Tea Party Movement would exist, still, but it wouldn’t have a political ally, in the form of the GOP. I am a Republican, and I can tell you:1) I love Sarah Palin; and2) I’m glad McCain lost.He would have spent his entire first, and only term, reaching across the aisle to Reid and Pelosi. There would be no opposition to his “moderate and pragmatic” approach to governance. We’d have had the Stimulus Bill, and some version of the Senate Health Care Bill, Cap n’ Trade, and “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”, i.e., Amnesty for Illegals.

Sure the people that started the Tea Party Movement would still be there and they’d still be energized, but the “movement” isn’t a party…..and without a party, a movement is powerless. So first the Tea Party Movement would have to have created a Third Party, failed in two electoral cycles, and then migrated to the GOP or fought the GOP and McCain for control of the Party, from the loyal establishment Republicans (Supporting “their” POTUS) and the “moderate” Republicans (Vainly seeking some illusory centre and the approval of the NYT and LAT). It would have been a damaging and bloody civil war. As it is, that’s not necessary….the GOP and the Tea Party Movement can move on parallel and complementary courses until Nov. 2010 and Nov 2012…when the Tea Party Movement may expect the GOP to ACTUALLY enact some Tea Party initiatives.

There were lots of good reasons for not voting for John McCain, chief among them was his abandonment of the US Constitution by attaching his name to the McCain-Feingold bill - the majority of which the Supreme Court has struck down as a predictable and appallingly unconstitutional attack on the very First Amendment he fought and almost died for in Vietnam.

I did not vote for John McCain because of his support for this legislation. You cannot reward Republicans who move to restrict our freedoms.

Having said that, I would never have voted for Barack Obama. Fortunately (in this particular instance), because I live in Massachusetts, I could afford to neither vote for John McCain nor Barack Obama because my electoral vote wouldn't have mattered one nit anyway.

So, I was free to stick with my conscious knowing it probably wouldn't affect the outcome.

Ann ... on the other hand ... you actually voted for Barack Obama and urged others to do likewise.

I agree. A McCain Presidency would have just continued our slow drifting into Socialism and Serfdom.

By having Obama and his band of thugs try to cram the entire program down our throats all at one time, the American people (those that hadn't already realized the danger) have awoken.

Obama has tried to "change" the Country to fast. Like the frogs slowly boiling to death in the simmering water that never would have awoken, Obama turned the heat up and the frogs all of a sudden said: "WTF..It's getting really hot here".

I just hope that the Democrats and Obama aren't able to wreak so much damage that we are not able to turn our country back around again. I'm fearful of that.

I agree with you and with El Rushbo who said much the same thing that you said, but not as eloquently. McCain just would never play the attack cards for some reason, and that allowed Obama to win easily. He was too old to react to the new situation he was in. I believe that McCain thought still that the media were the ones he had to please. He underestimated the voters intelligence. The SaraCuda point guard just wanted the ball in her hands in the final minutes of the game. She would have at least taken a shot from the top of the key instead of losing the ball. She never feared the media's craft.

I'm on board with Tancredo on this one and agree with Florida's points. The so-called "silent majority" would have remained not only silent, but in the apparent semi-stupor that most Americans have been in, politically at least, as long as I've been paying attention.

As the ground-up movement picks up more steam, watch for sniper shots (dodged, of course, by Hillary) at some of the more prominent movers, manifesting in personal attacks at their backgrounds, police records, taxes, etc.

The republicans did not want to win this election, they knew the morass that was coming, and wanted to blame the other party. McCain (born in Panama, Resolution 511 was a sham with no force of law), nor Obama (father was never a citizen) were eligible Natural Born Citizens. This is what politicians think of the Constitution and we the People.

Let one party take responsibility for everything. When they can't whine and finger-point, what will they actually step up and do? It will be interesting to know.

As Pastafarian eloquently pointed out above, what's "interesting" for a university professor to know was very nearly disastrous for the nation as a whole. I know enough university professors to realize that you, personally, won't accept being told that you weren't bright; we were lucky.

But I'll say it anyway.

And I'd like to point out that "they" -- the Democrats -- continue to whine and finger point despite overwhelming control of both the legislative and executive branches. If you were looking for grown-ups to act grown up, you backed the wrong party.

A dangerous gamble. I fear it is already too late, and we have 3 more years. The economy will likely rebound as it always does, locking in all these mistakes and leading to a much worse and permanent malaise.

This recession is fueled and extended by fear. It should be over by now. It likely would be with ANYONE less scary than Obama.

While I am thrilled about the benefit of Americans seeing real leftism in action, I think the price will be too high.

Obama is correct that he inherited these problems. Tea party animus is equally if not more so directed at the Congress than Obama. A revival of fiscal conservatism was going to happen regardless. If Obama resigned today and McCain took over somehow, the Tea Party movement would continue. Their goals are not about who is President.

I wanted to include in my first comment how much I appreciated the logic of your reasoning throughout the campaign. I held my nose and voted for McCain because I didn't want Obama's win to be a blowout. I was hoping that he and the Dems wouldn't think they had a mandate to indulge in their leftist wet dreams. The first stimulus bill was all that I feared.

Sometimes, I think that letting the Democrats control everything for 2 years would work out just fine. Let one party take responsibility for everything. When they can't whine and finger-point, what will they actually step up and do?

What will they do? Well after one year of Bambi he's still blaming Bush and blaming the party which is wandering in the wilderness for obstructing his Grand Schemes.

McCain was far from perfect. However, he would not have scared the crap out of the investor class. The market operates on confidence. Obama inspires none. Much of this was predicted. He was our most liberal Senator.

We got a 7.0 earthquake, when McCain would have been a series of 3.5s.

So the main driving force for the Tea Party resistance is because a Democrat was elected. Nothing about principles. OF COURSE, garage it's all about the Democrats, not principles. Yeah that's why the Establishment GOP is wary of the movement...you can tell yourself this fairy tale, if you want, that the Tea Party Movement is merely a GOP construct, but it's not.

It may be more naturally inclined to vote GOP, but that's not a guarantee.

Me, I think analogically, "this is like that." I see the Tea Party Movement as the Hippies of the 1960's(Short Hand for the Various Progressive/Radical Causes-anti-war/feminism, environmentalism/racial identity politics). Now the Hippies hated the Democrats, too, they protested LBJ and opposed Humphrey, but they REALLY hated Republicans. In the end, Hippies took over the Democrats, remaking them into a Progressive Party. From 1968 to 1980 I imagine Tom Hayden and his cronies had many an unpleasant meeting with Democrats they despised, until the Zell Millers and “Scoop” Jacksons and Sam Nunns were all long-gone from the party or at least from the levers of power. So, though they disliked the Democrats, in their then of form, they realized that the Democrat Party was more to their ideological liking, and transformed it.

I see the Tea Party doing the same thing to the GOP….They don’t like the GOP, in its Hastert, Tom DeLay, Bush 43, NCLB, Medicare Part D form, they probably have even less in common with the Democrats and will end up either allying with (GOP hopes) or Transforming the GOP a la the Hippies (the GOP Nightmare).

But the Tea Party Movement is NOT the Republican Party with signs, Garage….but as I say, keep telling yourself this, if it makes the wobblies go away….

1) you're too dense to understand what's really happening if you make a statement like that.

Maybe I'm dense for taking what you said up thread seriously then:

"I'm on board with Tancredo on this one and agree with Florida's points. The so-called "silent majority" would have remained not only silent, but in the apparent semi-stupor that most Americans have been in, politically at least, as long as I've been paying attention".

2) the hubris of Democratic governance since the election is what started the Tea Party movement.

Those TownHells were in full force before Obama even knew where the shitters in the WH were located. He couldn't possibly have enacted anything in the first couple of months of his term to warrant the outrage. It's either that or these people are really stupid.

Why will the economy recover this time? Did you read today's WSJ article on Pfizer's CEO and his leading Big Pharma to surrender to the threats from the White House? My American History is lacking, so help me out. Has there been another President who looked to nationalize or tax into oblivion our biggest industries? Don't tell me Obama wants to do no such thing. Doesn't matter what he want to do. Too many business types fear that is exactly what he wants to do. Confidence. Isn't there.

@ GarageThe driving force for the Tea Partiers I know is all about principle: fiscal responsibility. It just so happens the Democrats are in power and racing recklessly away from this principle, so of course they are drawing the immediate ire/backlash.

@ ZPSWhy the hate for a group that wants to discuss the politics of tax collection and government spending? There isn't even a party, much less a representative, much less a representative talking about social issues, so who do you have in mind as racist and idiotic?

Those TownHells were in full force before Obama even knew where the shitters in the WH were located. He couldn't possibly have enacted anything in the first couple of months of his term to warrant the outrage.

Or it is possible garage, that those stupid people took Obama at his word when he was promising on the campaign he was going to push for universal health care and spend us into oblivian, particularly since he had Congress in his pocket.

See some of us actually listened to what he was saying while the rest of you were wallowing in a post-orgasmic stupor from his smile.

It's all worked out fabulously for the people whose actual jobs are in the conservative resurgence. It's not so fine for the people whose jobs Obama has effectively eliminated for the foreseeable future. Although I have to admit, even I never imagined the incredible scope of the damage he would do. And I have a pretty good imagination.

The idea that we are going to go back on civil rights while in the midst of a black as president, redefining marriage and finally making a dent on DADT is, not to put too fine a point on it, a little paranoid.

The driving force for the Tea Partiers I know is all about principle: fiscal responsibility. It just so happens the Democrats are in power and racing recklessly away from this principle, so of course they are drawing the immediate ire/backlash.

Riiight. They're protesting because Obama is president, and they don't like it. That is it. Like I said, they were protesting the second he was elected.

Those TownHells were in full force before Obama even knew where the shitters in the WH were located. He couldn't possibly have enacted anything in the first couple of months of his term to warrant the outrage.

You're sort of undercutting your own "He did exactly what he said he was going to" refrain here, aren't you? I mean, if Obama was saying he was going to do all these things then that'd be plenty for the tea partiers to complain about, even if he hadn't done any of them yet.

Those TownHells were in full force before Obama even knew where the shitters in the WH were located. He couldn't possibly have enacted anything in the first couple of months of his term to warrant the outrage. It's either that or these people are really stupid.

Gee Garage if you got your news from something other than MSNBC/Chris Matthews/Olberman you'd understand they began with the "Stimulus Bill" and the Debt it imposed and the realization by people that that debt could only be paid off thru HIGHER TAXES, hence TaxedEnoughAlready, You know "TEA" and thence the Tea Party Movement, along with the reference to the Revolutionary Act against Great Britain.

So whilst Obama was looking for the sh*tters he had no trouble finding the debt machine nor any trouble in arousing opposition to his spending....

In fact, it might have been better if he looked for the sh*tters first, and then went over to Harry and Nancy for suggestions about the economy.

The Juggernaut is that so many of our citizen are now dependent on government spending that we are now in the spot Ben Franklin warned us about: “When the people find that they can vote themselves money,that will herald the end of the republic.”

There are now enough public beneficiaries to win most local and national elections in service of assuring that their government check shows up in the mailbox every month.

By the time Obama is gone this will be beyond repair.

It's unfortunate that McCain was not a clear alternative, but it would have kept the ship slow enough to avoid the iceberg.

Bagh I believe you’re wrong…what would have happened with McCain is that we’d have had half of Obama’s agenda passed….right now we’ve only had the Stimulus Bill passed. So, we’d be half-way to obmama-ville and the GOP, having voted with “their” POTUS would have so damaged their brand that after the Democrat won in 2012, who could oppose further advances of the Progressive Agenda?

A lot of the anger began before the election with the TARP bailout. Arguably, disgust with McCain's high-drama, low-leadership reaction to the banking crisis is what finally finished off the man's election chances.

Thus disgust at government spending was present even before Obama was elected. The growth and organization of the Tea Party movement followed the trajectory of spending started by Bush and okayed by the supine McCain.

I say this despite my belief that TARP was necessary and a ultimate good.

So, we’d be half-way to obmama-ville and the GOP, having voted with “their” POTUS would have so damaged their brand that after the Democrat won in 2012, who could oppose further advances of the Progressive Agenda?

Well the Tea Pary movement is why McCain is still a Senator. I'll wager that the vast majority of them stayed home which is why we now are led by a former community organizer.

And yes garage, they are protesting Obama because they don't like what he said he was going to do, what he's done and what he's trying to do. To put it into perspective for you, if the option was available, I'd replace him with Bill Clinton in a New York second. That's how bad I think Obama is for the country.

He couldn't possibly have enacted anything in the first couple of months of his term to warrant the outrage.

Well he could have enacted the "stimulus," which anyone with a brain could see wouldn't actually stimulate anything. Nearly a trillion dollars, and not targeted to where help was needed but to the states and districts of Democrats with clout. And early information about healthcare "reform" was already circulating and scaring people.

So there was plenty to react against. What amazes you is that people thought for themselves, and reacted.

The stimulus was going to happen no matter what. What would be vastly better under Mcain would be where the money would go. The stimulus could have had great benefit, but it is going to expand dependency not stimulate the economy.

Another big difference is what ideology would be getting permanently planted in the county's garden. When Obama is done, there will be thousands of wrong headed appointees, hire and funded organizations, that will remain as choking weeds from the Supreme Court to the receptionist at ACORN.

Elections have consequences. This is not a poker game where you just shuffle and play again.

Tancredo is more upset about John Mccain's veiw on immigration reform. There is not one "conservative" stand on that issue that draws Tancredo up the wall.

Of ocurse Tancredo has allied homself with some of the more extreme anti immigration groups whose agenda is far from conservatives.

JOhn McCain has got a bad rap because of CFR. People who make a living off sending us a email every five minutes to send them 25 dollars to save the Republic were theatened and thus began the abusrd camapign that McCain was some liberal. If you hear that message enough day after day then some start believing it

That and his support for "Amensty"...and his oppostion to the Bush Tax Cuts, and then there was his desire to "leave the surplus in Washington", and his oppostion to "torture"...you know all those things too. plus his evident delight in being the "Maverick" who put his thumb in the eye of the Base...

It's true his Lifetime Conservative Rating is respectable, but it's his LIFETIME rating, his last years he was far less relaible.

garage said (12:08): "Those TownHells were in full force before Obama even knew where the shitters in the WH were located. He couldn't possibly have enacted anything in the first couple of months of his term to warrant the outrage."

Joe responded (12:18): "they began with the "Stimulus Bill" and the Debt it imposed".

Balls in your court, garage. Please provide a link showing that the TEA party movement started in the first couple of months.

Blogger Pastafarian said pretty much what I was thinking. We may yet dodge complete Obaminization, but only by a curly hair.

The reason the Tea Party movement got rolling so quickly is that it is only partly a reaction to Obama - it really started as a reaction to President Bush and Candidate McCain, and their apparent disregard for fiscal and economic conservationism.

Despite what hysterical shriekers like Olberman and their mini-mes like ZPS think, the a Tea Party takeover would leave the GOP less focused on social and "wedge" issues and more more concerned with run-away spending.

Holdfast, sadly, for you, the most reliable anti-tax folks are also the most socially conservative, in Congress at least....so if you want smaller government, you'd best be prepared to see opposition to abortion and gay marriage...welcome to politics.

Like I said the Hippies made their peace with their party some time ago, the Tea Party Movement will have some "decid'n" to do soon, as well.

To see how bad a gamble this was, you have to add together all the negative he actually accomplished plus what he will, and add the destruction of the world's laboratory of modern medicine and the other negatives of Obamacare. We just barely dodged that huge caliber bullet...maybe.

@ GarargeRiiight. They're protesting because Obama is president, and they don't like it. That is it. Like I said, they were protesting the second he was elected.

Actually, they were protesting Bush spending in 2007, 2 years BEFORE Obama took office (with some Tea Party groups then going on record to publicly support the Ron Paul candidacy in '08), so PLEASE don't go to the gutter and try to spin this as a recent, racist reaction to a black president. The movement has certainly grown since Inauguration '09, but only (not even keeping up?) in correlation to Federal spending.

And, Obama has been-LUCKY on the terrorist front I hope for all of us-that holds.

Am I the only one that is alarmed about how they almost went into "cover up" mode Christmas day.

Not one other aircraft was notified. The Administration determined that they did not have a right to know.

Not one other agency was notified about the questioning of the subject-not CIA, not NSA, not the Defense Department-they didn't have a right to infringe on Holder's turf. In fact the FBI didn't get the background information on the guy.

The Obama Administration's excuse is that they were "re-organizing" ,that their special team or whatever was not yet set up.

So there you have it-pure luck.

I'm sure that Abdulmutallab was just a test of the Obama Admin-early warning broadcast system and

FAIL is the result.

Also we have THREE MORE YEARS of amateur hour left.

Plus one of the Conservative judges drops out in the next three years they take that branch of government for a long damn time.

Finally-

INCUMBENCY-it's a HUGE factor.

That three years of luck we have to hope for could very easily turn into seven.

And, seven years of Obama filling the courts -not just the Supreme Court with Uber Liberal judges-that serve for-

Yes, had McCain won, all the "reasonable" conservatives would've been chanting "We've got to support our Commander-in-chief" as McCain cut deals with Reid/Pelosi, put Lieberman in charge of Justice and started a couple new wars.

The Republican party is useless. Any mention of true change brings horror-filled cries of "extremist" or "populist". So we keep rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and ignore the looming financial iceberg ahead.

And yes garage, they are protesting Obama because they don't like what he said he was going to do, what he's done and what he's try

So they listened to all those pretty words, eh. It's a free country I say protest to your heart's content. Ain't buying the "fiscal conservative" outrage though. They would have been out protesting against Bush if they were so concerned about spending money. Weren't they paying attention when Bush was racking up a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit that he was planning on handing off to the new guy? Including the stimulus, new spending [including the stimulus] by the Obama administration equals roughly 10% of this year's deficit. Virtually ALL of our national debt is from Reagan and two Bushes.

"That and his support for "Amensty"...and his oppostion to the Bush Tax Cuts, and then there was his desire to "leave the surplus in Washington", and his oppostion to "torture"...you know all those things too. plus his evident delight in being the "Maverick" who put his thumb in the eye of the Base...

It's true his Lifetime Conservative Rating is respectable, but it's his LIFETIME rating, his last years he was far less relaible."

Yes his support for immigration reform caused problems. But the Republuican electorate is a lot more dividied on that than is percieved by some. HE had a honorable postion of that.

He opposed the Bush Tax cuts because he did not think there were enough budget cuts to go along with it. Again a strain of conservative thought that is respectable.

And yes he is against torture that a good many conservatives are also against. I don't think there is a one conservative position on that issue.

THis is a party of conservativisms plural and yeah McCain was the poster boy for those that felt their brand should rules and the others excommunicated

I agree with Tancredo. The best cure for liberalism is living under liberalism, and this is liberalism in its most pure form.

It almost scares me to think the Reps will take back the House and/or Senate in November. Will they roll back the insane debt, or will they be seduced by its largesse? McCain would be "bipartisan" and try to convince us he's spending it more wisely.

Yes his support for immigration reform caused problems. But the Republuican electorate is a lot more dividied on that than is percieved by some.Really because his Amnesty Bill was opposed by a large majority of the Populace, if by "Conservative" you mean Wall Street Journal/Libertarians, then there was a "Conservative" PoV on the issue...

HE had a honorable postion of that. REALLY, it was honourable, to lie to the US populace that THIS, time unlike Mazoli Simpson we'd "enforce the immigration laws." That was the problem we'd been here in 1986, and that dog didn't hunt any more.

He opposed the Bush Tax cuts because he did not think there were enough budget cuts to go along with it. Again a strain of conservative thought that is respectable.

Sure leave the money in DC...the politicians will spend it wisely. I guess it's "conservative" to think that the guru's in DC can spend your cash better than you can.

And yes he is against torture that a good many conservatives are also against. I don't think there is a one conservative position on that issue.Actually there is, we oppose TORTURE, but we don't think water-boarding is torture, nor do we think that the interrogation of KSM sparked MORE terrorists, nor do we believe that our "torture" made US troops more vulnerable to enemy torture (after all no one was water-boarded when McCain was in the Hanoi Hilton, but did he get good treatment?) Nor do we believe that terrorists or unlawful combatants have any standing in the Federal Court System...

THis is a party of conservativisms plural and yeah McCain was the poster boy for those that felt their brand should rules and the others excommunicated

Yeah that's why Lindsey Graham McCain ally, told the "racist to shut up" right...because we wanted to excommunicate those who disagree with us...that's why the Tea party Movement is happy with Scott Brown, even though he's more likely to be a McCain than a Jim DeMint...we all believe in ideological purity.

Aboslute crap. I don't remember either Bush or Reagan voting on any of the recent raising of the statutory debt ceilings. Explain that one.

Secondly, even if President Obama is completely clean of guilt regarding the current debt (although he was in the Senate for a while if memory serves), he is wholly responsible for the budget going forward. If there are programs that are mandated and not paid for, that translates to an increase in the deficit and an increase in the overall debt. He could stop that if he had the stones.

He doesn't. His just-released budget is blank-and-white proof if that.

Ideology can blind, but let's try to be so obvious about it. It hurts the eyes.

Joe - He would have spent his entire first, and only term, reaching across the aisle to Reid and Pelosi. There would be no opposition to his “moderate and pragmatic” approach to governance. We’d have had the Stimulus Bill, and some version of the Senate Health Care Bill, Cap n’ Trade, and “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”, i.e., Amnesty for Illegals.

I remember Althouse rejected voting for him because he was erratic, belligerant and oft times incoherent. I agreed with her reasons as well as each one of yours.

Plus, I added two others: McCain wanted not only to amp up the Iraq and Afghanistan troop levels AFTER he was elected, he also said that he might have to start a war with Iran, even with no allies, even when a cut in oil oil would give us 9.00 a gallon gas plunge the world into Depression.And he was clueless on what to do with the economy and financial meltdown - his centerpiece was a 600 billion dollar program to bail out any neighbor you had who bought more hose than they could afford by given them enough money that their principal was lowered enough to make it affordable.

At the time, I said on Althouse that election McCain would serve as a giant fig leaf to the Left - with McCain giving them "bipartisan cover" to do 90% of what Reid and Pelosi wanted.

Not electing McCain and removing his usual "deal with Democrats, please my good friends in the media" treachery meant the Dems would OWN IT. No fig leaf.

See my earlier comments, but the Tea Party DID start as spending protest during the Bush years. And, though I agree that both parties have spent egregiously, before you climb on your 'it's the Republicans fault' high horse', just remember that Democrats controlled the House of Reps and wrote the budgets for 24 of the 30 years you're talking about!

traditional guy - He underestimated the voters intelligence. The SaraCuda point guard just wanted the ball in her hands in the final minutes of the game. She would have at least taken a shot from the top of the key instead of losing the ball. She never feared the media's craft.

I guess I missed that part about your Goddess being in any part of the Republican Presidential Primaries - not behavior of someone that wanted "the ball in their hands". She was plucked out of the bleachers by a desperate man who had poisoned his standing with the hardcore base but who couldn't stand to put a hardcore Southern eveolution-denier on the ticket.

"She would have taken the shot"?????? - she didn't run! She was just VP filler fodder.

All your Goddess was was a glorified version of John Edwards. Attractive, gives good stump speeches trowing the red meat out to the bozos, had the depth of a rain puddle, and who got either the women (Edwards) or middle-aged male conservatives (Palin) hot and inclined to vote for them on looks..

The issue of financial collapse for all but a few Faux Aristocrats sucking at the FED's tit is the backdrop. The real formation of the Tea party protests was due to Obama and Democrats in Congress lying about everything all the time. When times are tough, that's when we need straight talk. The angry population was not going to listen to anymore commercials from nonsense land while the ship was sinking. They are telling the Dems (like Scott Brown proved) that relying upon a media covered up fabric of lies in no longer going to be acceptible. That is why Palin is in and McCain is out.

"I can picture Obama standing up to the Democratic Congress and being his own man."

Ann:you were dead wrong on this one. Instead of standing up to the Democratic Congress, he even farmed out to them the bills & cutting deals to get the 1/6th of the economy he wanted the government to take over via Obamacare.

I couldn't agree more. I voted for McCain and will vote for him again.

I guess I'm not looking for nor expect "purity" in my candidates. Did I agree with every one of McCain's stances? No

But I liked his immigration efforts (and that in itself makes me the enemy to Tancreado and many on this blog). McCain has generally been fiscally conservative. I generally agreed with his approach in Iraq. And yes I respect someone who can work across the aisle. (there's that purity issue again.)

McCain has never been a great campaigner (but then again I doubt any Republican could have won the '08 election)

I have a lot of sympathy with this poll. Especially when one of our most popular politicians is Sheriff Joe.

PS An it seems supremely ironic that folks on this blog, in the Tea Party movement and within conservatives generally, have praised the revolution that is Scott Brown and in the next breath condemn McCain as a loser and a RINO.

Re: "(father was never a citizen) were eligible Natural Born Citizens."

The fact that Obama's father was not a citizen has no effect on Natural Born Citizen status. ALL children born in the USA who are citizens are Natural Born Citizens.

And Obama was born in the USA as his official birth certificate from Hawaii shows (and the facts on it have been confirmed twice by the officials in Hawaii, who are members of a Republican governor's administration).

Never forget that Tancredo was and is a one issue politician. He had his shot and didn't even make the second tier.

Moreover, a lot of the people commenting here are missing a few things - in a couple of cases, their minds.

First, Junior would have supported amnesty and cap & trade, granted, but I don't recall him saying anything about health care or his calling for a stimulus or bailing out Detroit.

Second, given past performance, everybody except garage has to admit Pelosi Galore and Dingy Harry would have opposed him on everything just out of spite and partisanship.

Third, does anybody really believe we would have had a global apology tour, bowing to various titled heads of state, jury trials for KSM and his 9/11 pals, an outstretched hand to the Dinner Jacket, and a really dangerous, uniformed foreign and military policy with McCain?

garage mahal said...

So the main driving force for the Tea Party resistance is because a Democrat was elected. Nothing about principles.

Only in your mind.

Those TownHells were in full force before Obama even knew where the shitters in the WH were located. He couldn't possibly have enacted anything in the first couple of months of his term to warrant the outrage. It's either that or these people are really stupid.

Lie. They didn't start until February and the main issue were the bailouts, particularly of Detroit.

They're protesting because Obama is president, and they don't like it. That is it. Like I said, they were protesting the second he was elected.

They're protesting a lot of neo-, proto-, crypto-, small c communist policies. And, as I said, they didn't start until mid-February.

Big Mike said...

I'd replace him with Bill Clinton in a New York second.

Heck, Hoosier, I'd replace him with either Clinton.

You're both out of your minds. Whatever he is or isn't, Junior is no traitor or radical. Willie swept all his problems under the rug for his successor, after his Lefty agenda blew up in his face. As for the Hildabeast, who was it that wanted to hire her straight out of law school? Some guy with the initials SA.

Hearing some Obama voter self justification here, and we're far from being out of the woods. The downward slide into socialism or worse may be only a heartbeat away.

Instead of, "See! I was right!"; how about taking off the rosy shades and asking what comes next IF we happen to get through this disastrous presidency.

The left won't have learned a thing. They never do. The failures will all be someone else's fault and they'll have scores to settle.

The economy will be a wreck and unemployment will be out of sight. Worse than that, we'll be wards of the Chinese, among others. Debt will stretch as far as the eye can see.

The MSM will be clinging to Obama as their last hope. Their BDS will seem like a Sunday school tea party compared to what will unleashed on Obama's right wing successor.

...and we hope to launch a successful conservative presidency into this maelstrom of destruction and failure? It's not that there aren't solutions to our problems, it's that the left will make sure they never get enacted. They are the sworn enemies of any prosperity or success not their own.

Seems like the 'clever' choice of Obama may have poisoned the well for all time. Hope I'm wrong.

I voted for McCain, but I held my nose while I did so.I cannot imagine voting for Obama then, or now. I've always seen him for what he's revealing himself to be today.I could not imagine the notion of sitting out Election Day without voting, but I must say that perhaps that was actually the best option. I know a number of conservatives who tell me they voted for Palin, not McCain.

Consider where we are now. Has there ever been a better case for Divine Providence? Our Lord knows best and yes, finally I must remind myself;

Althouse voted for Obama. How's that Hope and Change workin' out for ya, Althouse?

You know, if the Democrats and Republicans really wanted to work together, you know, they'd try to compromise on this crap. If they really wanted to transform society, they'd come together. If we had leaders at all interested in this, and not just interested in picking up a few seats in the house, or senate, and getting a minority, or majority, leader, whip, whatever position, then something could have moved by now.

As bad as Republicans were over the last decade, how can anyone make the case that the Democrats in congress aren't worse. With majorities in both houses, and a Democratic president, with the highest liberal rating from the Senate, they can't get the signature issue done, maybe not even before the next election.

Blame Republicans all you want. But if the Democrats really believe what they want to do is the best thing for the country, did it not occur to them that they could change the rules? We're talking senate rules, not the constitution. The 60 votes for closure is a senate rule, which (if I remember correctly) can be changed by a simple majority vote. They could simply change it to 59 and be done with it. Back when the Republicans were in charge, they called it the "nuclear option." Republicans didn't cross that line because they wanted to keep the fig leaf of bipartisanship (which didn't help them in '06).

So it comes down to: The reason health care hasn't emerged from conference comittee isn't because they don't have 60 votes for closure. They don't have 50 votes to suspend the rules and bring it to a vote. Because they don't want a vote, because of how bad it's polling.

And speaking of Divine Providence, who's to say that God wouldn't have played his hand if McCain-Palin were elected?Democrats warned that McCain was so old, he would probably die inside of his term. Then Palin would have become president and we wouldn't have to wait 4 years to begin to set the ship right.The Left would become demoralized and move to Belgium, Althouse would register with the GOP and we'd be enjoying a new energy boom with prosperity for all.

T-man made a comment a few months ago here about this general topic. I still think it's true:

The trouble is that the people who were willfully blind about Obama before the election and supported him, all thought, and still think, that they are far more intelligent that those who opposed Obama. Their self image depends upon perceived intellectual superiority, and it will be extremely difficult for them to admit to themselves that they were wrong.

The best chance it to give these people an excuse - 'I was misled by the media' is the best option here. This is one of the reasons I think that the Breitbart assault on the mainstream media is so dangerous to Obama.

"The fact that Obama's father was not a citizen has no effect on Natural Born Citizen status. ALL children born in the USA who are citizens are Natural Born Citizens"

Wrong. Not according to the dicta of The venus, Dred Scott, Minor v. Happersett, Wong Kim Ark or Perkins v. Elg. Minor v. Happersett said the definition is not in the USC, so that means it's not a "born" Citizen of the 14 Amendment.

Joe said... "What makes Obama a citizen is the fact he was born in HAWAII and his Mom was a US citizen.....I believe that's double coverage.

I didn't vote for the man but this "Birther"stuff is a goofy as the "Boosh was AWOL" stuff...

Could we just focus on the policies, not the silly stuff that's not even true?"

Another one with no clue. The requirement for POTUS is Natural Born Citizen (Born in the US of 2 Citizen Parents ---- Born with no competing foreign allegiances). Obama was born a dual citizen of Britain due to his father's Kenyan citizenship. I thought that I would find some smarter people on this blog. Or at least some lawyers that might know the constitution, but alas.

The Wong Kim Ark case clearly holds that ALL children born in the USA are Natural Born.

The actual words of the Wong Kim Ark ruling (which by the way was six to two) were:

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

As you can see, it says that EVERY child (except for the children of foreign diplomats) born in England, or the Colonies or the States, AND under the Constitution is Natural Born.

That is the meaning of Natural Born, and that by the way was the way that the AMERICAN leaders at the time of the Constitution used the term.

It was a synonym for Native Born, but native born was not used frequently at the time. Natural Born was used all the time, in lots of articles, and it always meant "born in the country." It never was used by any AMERICAN leader at the time as "two citizen parents."

And that is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

And that is why Black's Law Dictionary writes: “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

And that is why the Wall Street Journal wrote:

"Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."

And, by the way, that is also why Obama won all 365 electoral votes that he won in November 2008. Not one Elector changed a vote despite an effort by birthers to contact them and try to make them change their votes. And, by the way, that is why Congress confirmed the election of Obama unanimously despite a similar campaign by birthers. Because they all believe with Black's Law Dictionary and the Wong Kim Ark case, that a citizen born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen.

Why do liberals keep glossing over the 70s? By 1980 our economy was a wreck; far worse in real terms than it is now. Had Carter been reelected, we would have been in a full scale depression by 1982. Instead we had a deep recession and a massively huge recovery. After which, the congress proceeded to spend like mad monkeys (include the republican assholes in the senate.)

(At the end of the 90s when there was a surplus due mostly to the tech bubble, instead of paying down debt, politicians all across the country and in Washington went crazy spending even more.)

When the policy is obviously foolish, but you still want to defend the man, you can always resort to the deeply nuanced and useful analysis of who was President when the decades long cycles ebb and flow. As soon as a President is sworn in the entire economy switches over to their ideology and everything changes. Or do they inherit problems? It's so confusing.

How about doing yourself a favor and rerunning the statistics to (1) leave out the JFK years -- he pretty famously cut taxes and he governed before Johnson's massive spending spree that is still wildly out of control, and (2) leave out the years when Republican presidents had to contend with Democrat majorities that reached 2/3 of both houses. Under scenario (2) there was little that Nixon (a Keynesian by his own admission) and the feckless Ford could do to control runaway spending.

Obama vs. McCain was full-on socialism, like England after WW2, or socialism by the installment plan (i.e. more of the same crap started by FDR).

It's Hitler versus the Kaiser.I chose the Kaiser.

I still think Obama was the poorer choice, largely because the economic damage is far more massive than we needed to experience. My 3 children are screwed. I don't think that would have been as bad under McCain, that moron.

Joe said... "Uh Mick I don't think's it's as obvious as you think...so BOTh his parents gotta be US citizzens, eh?

Got a USC cite, a Constitutional cite, and then some Lawrence Tribe commentary to support that assertion?"

I've already cited plenty.Lawrence Tribe? MORON.1)Vattels Law of Nations (Natural Law definition. Natural Law is the basis of the Bill of Rights and is our Common Law (A1S8C10).

2)Naturalization Act of 1790 and 1795.

3)Comments of John Bingham during ratification of the 14A (1866) " I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..." 4) Dicta of Minor v. Happersett (1873)---The definition is not in the constitution, so therefore it is not a "Born" citizen of the 14A. 5) Dicta of The Venus, Wong Kim Ark, Perkins v. Elg

You want more. So what, you think that since the definition has been progressively faded from memory over time you can make it whatever you want? It was a term very well known to people at the time the USC was written.

If McCain were president, we wouldn't be seeing this socialist health care reform. Instead of single-payer, McCain and Congress would have agreed to a reform that mandated that everyone get private insurance, with some sort of subsidy for those at the low end of the income scale.

garage - wait a minute. So you are giving credit to the GOP Congress that Clinton had for 6 years? Because that's when all the growth happened. You can't be serious attributing all economic failings/success to the POTUS.

"No Bagh, we must IMPEACH Obama, for not being a natural born citizen!

Geez, it's sooooo Blindingly clear...."

No you can't impeach him, because running for office ineligibally is not a crime-- he could say he thought he was eligible. That's what all the talk abiout his father was about, what the Fight the Smears factcheck about his citizenship being "governed" by Britain was about. That's what Resolution 511 was about (though McCain is Not a Natural Borbn citizen- born in Panama). It was all to get the issue before the public. But the other strategy was to shield the issue with the BC Controversy (Remember it was Hillary that brought it up). My guess is that he was born in Hi. Doesn't matter, he could have been born in the White House with a Big Star overhead, and he would not be a Natural Born Citizen eligible for POTUS because his father was never a citizen. He of course knows this, since he is a Constitutional scholar. Quo Warranto in the DC District is the only other way to remove a sitting POTUS.You will hear about Quo Warranto soon filed by Chrsler Dealers who's Dealerships were taken away by the Obama government.

Joe - I am not sad - I'm fairly socially conservative - but I just don't care that much about it politically. I only care about it to the extent that being overly focused on social issues (i) means you take the eye of the economic ball (ii) drive away potential allies. I welcome the so-cons to the coalition, but they are going to have to understand that saving the country requires an economic focus for at least the near term. I do not advocate surrendering on social issues, but would also counsel against any fresh battles or campaigns - hold the line basically.

I know a number of conservatives who tell me they voted for Palin, not McCain.

Yes, those being the stupider sort of conservatives that mirrored the stupider Democrats that voted for JOhn Edwards because he looked great, roused crowds with his speeches and threw red meat to the base.As if Kerry or McCain had anything in mind for them except fundraising, attending funerals of the deputy President of Ecuador and miscellaneous photo ops to give the appearance that the President & staff were actually bothering to listen to the Veep.

=================Mick = Birther and armchair constitutional lawyer.

3 Presidents Arthur, Wilson, Hoover had one immigrant parent, and 4 VPs.Several candidates for President were born to US citizens abroad.

All it does is give fuel to the fire from the liberals that the people who oppose Obama are wackadoodles.

YES YES YES...you can repeat the same Natural Born arguments until the cows come home.....but to use another barnyard analogy....the horse has already left that barn "

You still don't understand (I thought people would be smarter here). I am not a "Birther", and don't care if Obama was born in the White House. Amazingly you don't care abou the fact that he knowingly Usurped the Presidency.What does that say abiout his character? It is not only about him, it is what comes after him. The requirement is a National Security measure. The founders of this country warned 200 years ago about foreign influence into our highest offices, and here it is coming true. Apparently you think you are smarter than them. Constitutional Relativist views like your are the death of the Republic. Quo Warranto can unseat him. Amazingly the Kryptonite that can stop the march towrd Maxism is available, but everyone is so politically correct and doesn't want to use it.

"I think we've discovered a new blog rule/reality. Given enough time and comments all conservative blog posts will eventually degenerate to an argument about Barack Obama's birth certificate."

Another one that doesn't care about upholding the USC, and doesn't care that the POTUS has KNOWINGLY Usurped the office. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE BC, HIS FATHER WAS NEVER A CITIZEN, SO HE'S NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

3 Presidents Arthur, Wilson, Hoover had one immigrant parent, and 4 VPs.Several candidates for President were born to US citizens abroad.

Birthers are nutty."

Wilson and Hoover's parents were naturalized by treaties before the future POTUS's were born, thus they were NBCs. Arthur was the only Usurper. He assumed the POTUS after assasination. Before the election it was widely thought that he was born in Canada, but he was actually born in Vt. No one knew, because of the BC controversy, much like today, that his father had never Naturalized. Arthur went great lengths to hide his family history, lying about his date of birth and burning all of his family papers before death. It has only recently been found that his father was not naturalized until Chester was 14. Fraud is not precedent.Charles Curtis (VP) was part American Indian. Being a half breed, his mother lived across from the reservation, where he was born (not on the reservation).What are the others so I can debunk them for you? Are you protecting the Usurper or the Constitution.

By the way Curtis's mother was automatically naturalized before Curtis was born by marraige to an Amercan Citizen as was the law then, so 2 citizens, born in American territory (Kansas wasn't a state yet, but was an American territory) = Natural Born Citizen

Out of all you supposed Lawyers on here, you mean there is not one of you that can go beyond "shut up", "You're and idiot", "you're wrong", etc and prove me wromg? You all must not be very good lawyers!

It is not against the law to run for POTUS and not be eligible. But they should be caught at either the State level or at the Electoral College, that's what the 20th Amendment is for-- "If the President Elect SHALL NOT HAVE QUALIFIED..." apparently I know a little more than you about the USC.

(one of them at least)I have read several talk about how with McCain we avoid Obamaville, and with Obama, Obamaville is MORE likely... Well I simply say that had McCain won, we'd have about half of Obamaville, because Reid and Pelosi would have pushed hard for the Progressive Agenda and McCain, in order to go along, in order to "get things done" would have OK'd much of it...more than the Stimulus, Cap n'Trade, any number of things...and the GOP would have been handicapped in its ability to oppose them, because their POTUS would have been willing to compromise on these issues.

Being in favour of HALF of the stimulus or in favour of HALF of Cap n'Trade, or HALF of Amnesty would have crippled the GOP's ability to oppose the REST of the agenda.

McCain's loss made the opposition possible...it gives the Tea Party Movment a party to focus its efforts upon, like the Hippies found a home in the Democrats.

So though I find Obama scary, I can't see the opposition to Progressivism being as potent had McCain won his election.

"Funny that, she didn't isn't it? Not really as "Natural Born Means" born in the US...it's the rule deployed by the Founders to ensure that Hamilton would not be POTUS, being born in the Bahama's."

And of course you are wrong again Since Hamilton WAS a Citizen at the time of the ratification of the USC and was grandfathered in, so he could have been POTUS ( A2S1C5-- or a Citizen at the time...). As for Hillary, she made a deal to be Sec. of State. They all knew that neither McCain nor Obama was eligible. Now do you want to be wrong again?

Pastafarian said... "Hey, Mick, thanks for hijacking and shitting all over an otherwise interesting topic."

Really? It's interesting to see Obama mocking the Constitution? Why do you think he doesn't say my Natural Born Citizenship? Hint-- He knows he doesn't qualify, but wants to give more life to the distraction of the BC. If I am wrong Prove it to me. What says that if you are simply born in the US you are eligible for POTUS?

Re: "What says that if you are simply born in the US you are eligible for POTUS?"

Well, first the Wong Kim Ark case that says that EVERY child born in the country is Natural Born, and if you are both Natural Born and a citizen you are, of course, a Natural Born Citizen.

I have quoted the relevant passage of the Wong Kim Ark ruling earlier.

Then, there is the widespread understanding of the meaning of Natural Born Citizen.

Yale Law Review wrote: "It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born. "

Black's Law Dictionary wrote: "“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.”

The Wall Street Journal wrote:

"Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."

And such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

Bingham was not a writer of the Constitution. He gave his opinion, which was not the same as was given by the six-to-two majority of the Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case.

I stress that Bingham was not a writer of the Constitution because a search of the writings of such leaders as Hamilton, Adams, and Jay shows that when they used the phrase "Natural Born Citizen," they ALWAYS used it to mean "born in the country. They NEVER used it to mean "born in the country to two citizen parents."

"I stress that Bingham was not a writer of the Constitution because a search of the writings of such leaders as Hamilton, Adams, and Jay shows that when they used the phrase "Natural Born Citizen," they ALWAYS used it to mean "born in the country. They NEVER used it to mean "born in the country to two citizen parents."

Well he was a writer of the constitution, unless you don't count the 14 Amendment as part of the Constitution. Also this was 90 years after ratification of the USC, so the term was still fresh in the public mind. It has been purposefully eroded from consciouness over time. And No the don't ALWAYS or NEVER (typical unproven nonsense spouted by the Obama Bridgetenders.

smrstrauss said,

""Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.""

Taranto is another of the Bridgetenders posing as a journalist. 3rd hand opinions from hack writers don't count as proof. Children born in Italy to 2 US Citizens, for instance, are US citizens by birth, but they are also Italian Citizens by birth, thus they are born with dual allegiance and are not Natural Born Citizens.

Hatch and Graham clearly have no idea what they are talking about. Citing an opinion that matches yours is not proof But during the Resolution 511 hearings there was this exchange between Leahy and Michael Chertoff: "Chairman Leahy: We will come back to that. I would mention one other thing, if I might, Senator Specter. Let me just ask this: I believe–and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President. I fully believe he does. I have never had any question in my mind that he meets our constitutional requirement. You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind–I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?

Secretary Chertoff: My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.

Chairman Leahy. That is mine, too. Thank you.

They both agreed that Natural Born Citizens are born of AMERICAN PARENTS (plural). So why wasn't the hearing about Obama?

Seriously, if Wong Kim ark is all that the Obama Bridgetenders have (that's all they ever present) then they are dead wrong. Wong was found to be a "Citizen" not a NBC, because he was born in the US to RESIDENT ALIEN UNNATURALIZEABLE ALIENS. That was the decision. Read it. Anything else you are just making up.

"And I'm pretty sure Mick is on Axelrod's payroll. Best to ignore him"

Another one that doesn't understand the argument. I really thought people would be smarter here. Then prove me wrong. WHAT says that any non citizen can swim across the border, drop a baby, and that baby be eligible to be POTUS one day? I've already dismantled smrstrauss with the same tired WKA cite multiple times. That's all he's got. I've given MULTIPLE CITES and proofs. Can't any of you prove me wrong? You know, something besides you're stupid, that's not what that says, you're a birther (I don't care where he was born), etc, etc. You guys must not be very good lawyers.

That was to add McCain to Obama's eligibility. No one had the slightest doubt of Obama's eligibility under the original meaning of Natural Born, which was "born in the country."

Some say that you can either be born in the country or born to two US citizens abroad. Like you can wear suspenders or a belt; you do not have to wear both.

That is the definition of Black's Law Dictionary.

It said: "“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

In short, adding McCain's eligibility does not take away Obama's eligibility. Three examples of Obama's eligibility being the overwhelming consensus would be the Electoral College vote. You may recall that Obama won 365 electoral votes on Nov 4 2008. Well birthers and two-fers wrote to the electors trying to get them to change their votes either because Obama may have been born outside the USA, as birthers say, or because Obama's father affects Natural Born status, as two-fers say. Well, not one of the 365 changed a vote.

Second, the same took place before Congress, where birthers and two-fers tried to get at some congressmen to vote not to confirm Obama. But not one did.

And the third, of course, was the swearing in of Obama by the Chief Justice.